Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Sermon Supoenaes


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

 

“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?”

 

It took fewer than 140 characters for Parker to show her lack of understanding of the law. She appears to think that pastors and churches cannot be involved politically, and that if pastors or churches dare to discuss political topics from the pulpit, they’re violating the law and subject to prosecution.

 

This is the same as the point you made earlier, Happy Christian, and I want to ask, where is this woman saying this in that tweet? I read that quote and interpreted it as meaning that if the pastors' sermons are relevant to a court case then they are not immune to being investigated for that purpose.

 

But this journalist is basically saying that the mayor is stating publicly that she's issued the subpoenas because she is trying to prosecute the pastors for bringing politics into their sermons. But that's a ridiculous interpretation because the stated reason for the subpoenas is a lawsuit over the petition. Whatever secret motives we might--perhaps rightly--ascribe to the council's actions, those aren't going to be stated ones are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

Noone has the authority to lawfully examine the sermons, emails, texts, etc., of these pastors. It doesn't matter if every sermon they preached tells people to sign the petitions and vote the mayor out.  There is no constitutional (federal or state) authority, nor even law in Houston that allows it. Examining the petitions for veracity is one thing - and should be done. Examining the pastors' communications another - and demanding them is the overreach. 

 

But what's the relevance of them being sermons? Are you saying that nOBody has the authority to examine others' communications and private copies of transcripts of their speeches etc, or are you saying that pastors have a special exemption?

 

In any case, I'm surprised to hear that, since, although I don't know much about the law, I thought that a subpoena was the way that evidence was brought before a court. How can anyone call witnesses or present evidence if no-one has any powers to collect evidence or compell witnesses to turn up? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer but if someone sued me and all the relevant documents that would establish the facts were at their mates' house, I imagine I'd ask for them, and if the judge or the individuals refused then I guess I'd turn to the judge and ask well how I can get a fair trial then? If I insisted on documents that were irrelevent then that's different, of course, and I'm guessing my opponents could then argue I was being vexatious or whatever it's called. But abusing the process is irrelevent to whether in principle there exists powers for people to be compelled to provide evidence to courts (in UK there is), and whether it's right for those powers to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

This is the same as the point you made earlier, Happy Christian, and I want to ask, where is this woman saying this in that tweet? I read that quote and interpreted it as meaning that if the pastors' sermons are relevant to a court case then they are not immune to being investigated for that purpose. Where did she mention the court case in her tweet? She was defiantly stating that she has the right to demand their sermons if she deems what they say to be political speech.  You might argue that I don't know her state of mind when she said it, but, really - her wording is pretty OBviously thumbing her nose...

 

But this journalist is basically saying that the mayor is stating publicly that she's issued the subpoenas because she is trying to prosecute the pastors for bringing politics into their sermons. But that's a ridiculous interpretation because the stated reason for the subpoenas is a lawsuit over the petition. Whatever secret motives we might--perhaps rightly--ascribe to the council's actions, those aren't going to be stated ones are they?

The amended subpoenas are now calling the sermons speeches...and are demanding all sermons related to HERO (the bathroom bill) and 17 other categories of information

 

From Todd Starnes:

 

According to the Houston Chronicle, Mayor Parker said on Friday, "We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners."

Folks, that's a load of grade A fertilizer. 

"We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit," she said.

There's just one prOBlem, Madam Mayor, the pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. And if you weren't looking for their sermons, why did you put that in the subpoena. 

The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. The subpoenas are an overreach. The relevance is that government servants do not have the constitutional (read: legal) authority to demand sermons just because they might mention something political.

 

Subpoenas are a way to bring evidence to a trial.  But here we get to the sticky widget again. The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. Neither are their sermons. Whether they mention the mayor or not in a sermon, a text, an email, has nothing to do with the bathroom bill.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/17/houston-to-pastors-forget-your-sermons-now-want-your-speeches/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Where did she mention the court case in her tweet? She was defiantly stating that she has the right to demand their sermons if she deems what they say to be political speech. You might argue that I don't know her state of mind when she said it, but, really - her wording is pretty OBviously thumbing her nose...


She didn't have to mention the court case in the tweet because it's OBvious from the context. The tweet was a response to criticism of the subpoenas. The subpoenas relate to a court case (no court case, no subpoenas) and the court case is about the the council being sued over their handling of a petition.

 

Why on earth would she state or even imply that she was issuing subpoenas to the pastors as part of a lawsuit against them for talking politics when no such lawsuit exists? The existence and the purpose of the lawsuit the subpoenas relate to is not in doubt, as that article you just pasted seems to think. There definitely is one (else by definition the demands would not be subpoenas). And it's definitely about the petition. Maybe there's alterior motives at play, of course, but those aren't going to be the stated reasons.

 

Subpoenas are a way to bring evidence to a trial.  But here we get to the sticky widget again. The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. Neither are their sermons. Whether they mention the mayor or not in a sermon, a text, an email, has nothing to do with the bathroom bill.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/17/houston-to-pastors-forget-your-sermons-now-want-your-speeches/

 
Whether or not the pastors are party to the lawsuit is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the pastors have testimony or evidence that's material to the court case. If the defence are calling for evidence that's irrelevant, then of course that's a good reason for the evidence not to be provided (and people do vexatious things all the time in court cases). But that's a totally different thing to saying that courts shouldn't be allowed to compel people to provide evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I think we are going in circles, here, Carl. The pastors' sermons are not relevant to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the bathroom bill.  The pastors' sermons have nothing to do with that. Nothing. And what the subpoenas are demanding is overreach.  Plain and simple.  Just a few things the subpoenas asked for (again, relevance is an issue: the pastors were not involved in the lawsuit. There were simply critical of HERO...):

 

Mayor Annise Parker, City Attorney David Feldman, HERO or any HERO drafts, and any copies or drafts for the petition to repeal the ordinance

-- Anything related to "the topics of equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity"
-- Any language related to restroom access or "any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact restroom access"
-- Communication with anyone at the religious right group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has criticized the ordinance
-- AND (here's the kicker) "all speeches, presentation, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by your or in your possession."

 

Overreach. Attempt to silence dissent.  Against our federal constitution, TX state constitution, federal law...Simply put: the subpoenas were wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. The subpoenas are an overreach. The relevance is that government servants do not have the constitutional (read: legal) authority to demand sermons just because they might mention something political.

 

Forgot to respond to this bit. But legally that's not what they're doing is it? There is no court case against the pastors for doing something political. Legally what's going on is that subpeonas have been issued in response to a court case about the council's handling of a petition. If what's being requested is irrelevant (perhaps because of alterior motive), then the subpoena can be OBjected to--par for the course.

 

If someone said that the council was using the court case to harrass the pastors or get access to their property and that is wrong, I'd say they had a point. But what's not happening--as is being implied in the press--is that the council is straight-up taking the pastors to court for political speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think we are going in circles, here, Carl. The pastors' sermons are not relevant to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the bathroom bill.  The pastors' sermons have nothing to do with that. Nothing. And what the subpoenas are demanding is overreach.  Plain and simple.  Just a few things the subpoenas asked for (again, relevance is an issue: the pastors were not involved in the lawsuit. There were simply critical of HERO...):

 

 

Overreach. Attempt to silence dissent.  Against our federal constitution, TX state constitution, federal law...Simply put: the subpoenas were wrong.  

 

Yeah, it depends how you define unconstitutional I guess, and you would know more than me. The point I'm making is that the council are not making any legal challenge to any right the pastors may have to political speech. If they were, I would have assumed that was unconstitutional--i.e. using power or authority not in the way intended. If they are 'silencing dissent' by other means, for example by being vexatious in a court case about something else, then I would call that wrong but not unconstitutional, in the same way I would call murder or theft wrong but not unconstitutional. But maybe I'm not using the word correctly! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The pastors' sermons are not relevant to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the bathroom bill.

 

The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the council's handling of a petition about the 'bathroom bill'. The pastors have been called to provide evidence because the defence alledges that they were involved in organising the petition. Maybe they weren't involved in it. Or maybe they were but they have nothing to say/provide that's germaine to the case. Or maybe they do but those sermons are not it. Whatever the truth, the lawyers are alledging that the pastors were involved in carrying out the petition and that such is relevant to the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Glad I don't live under British law.

 

Sounds like it! USA law must have changed a lot from English Common Law then, because under common law the courts can compel people to provide evidence in both criminal and civil cases and as far as I know it's been like that for many centuries and is a cornerstone of English justice. It that wasn't the case, I don't really see what the courts could actually do about anything. If you were being prosecuted for murder and there were ten witnesses but your court date fell on the day of the world cup final you'd be in luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The lawsuit was brought in opposition to the council's handling of a petition about the 'bathroom bill'. The pastors have been called to provide evidence because the defence alledges that they were involved in organising the petition. Maybe they weren't involved in it. Or maybe they were but they have nothing to say/provide that's germaine to the case. Or maybe they do but those sermons are not it. Whatever the truth, the lawyers are alledging that the pastors were involved in carrying out the petition and that such is relevant to the case.


The tweet states that they have entered the political area and there for are "fair game".
She is attacking them politically because they have become political.
That is what the tweet says.

I still think they should be freely giving any preaching to whoever will read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yeah, I think she's saying that they entered the political arena by organising a petition and now that the same petition is the focus of a lawsuit the pastors are "fair game" for having their roles in it investigated. That's the OBvious context of the Tweet because what is being discussed is the subpoenas, and the subpoenas relate to a court case about the petition. It's also the OBvious context of the question she asks in the same Tweet-- "Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?”

 

If the mayor is claiming the subpoenas are about investigating the pastors for generally preaching politics, then that must mean there is a lawsuit from whence the subpoenas came whereby the pastors are being prosecuted for preaching politics. But there is no such lawsuit.

 

Is the council using the lawsuit that is happening (the one about the petition) to bully and intimidate the pastors by issuing subpoenas that are irrelevent and 'overreaching'? Looks like it. But that's not the same thing as the state prosecuting the pastors for political speech.

 

Here's my rub with it. When I read some of the articles linked/posted here, and some folks comments, here's what I thought the facts were:

 

1. A lesbian mayor has become aware that pastors are preaching against homosexuality.

 

2. The mayor is now having the state prosecute the pastors and has publicly justified this action on the grounds that preaching on homosexuality is political and according to her it is illegal for pastors to bring politics into their sermons.

 

3. The prosecution is now underway, beginning with a subpoena demanding the pastors' sermon materials.

 

After all, the original Fox News article only mentioned about eight paragraphs in that it wasn't the state doing the suing and that the subpoenas were issued as part of a defence, not a prosecution. And bringing up first amendment is something you do when someone's trying to change a law or use a law to threaten your rights isn't it? So all this talk of the constitution being violated further implies that the state is trying to bring legal action against the pastors.

 

So if I didn't fact check that, and I went away and told others about it. And then for years it would come up in conversations about preaching--"you remember in 2014 some pastors were prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality?!"--does anyone think that would be a fair summary or what really happened?

 

And it's really unecessary because what really has happened is serious enough: a council has apparently refused a petition even after it passed the number of signatures needed, and the council has responded to a lawsuit about it by issuing subpoenas that appear to be designed to intimidate those involved in the petition (and/or for preaching against homosexuality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Carl, the challenge to the bathroom bill is based upon the fact that there were more than the required number for a petition.  There were many thousands handed in, and those that were not legitimate were discounted. Even at that, that left a few hundred more than the required amount. The rub came in, though, when the city attorney through out ALL of the signatures, and thus the referendum was shot down. Illegally, I might add. The city secretary (I'm not sure of her actual title) who is responsible for counting and approving the signatures did so.  The city attorney had no legal right, nor any business, coming in and tossing them, thus effectively saying the people of the city had no right to vote on whether or not to allow transgenders in opposite sex bathrooms.

 

Of course the mayor isn't claiming she's going after them politically...who in their right mind would claim that?  Carl, I realize you don't live in America, but please know this: our freedoms and liberties have been under attack for many years. God-haters are trying to remove Him from every aspect of life.  And, sadly, too many Christians are going along with the idea that Christians should stay out of certain areas (completely backward of how this country was founded).  I'm sorry, but the subpoenas don't have to center in a lawsuit whereby the politics or not of pastors is involved...all that is necessary is for them to demand them, in the name of the particular lawsuit here (bathroom bill) as a way to control. For what reason, other than scrutiny and attempt at control, did the subpoena state that all sermons that mentioned the mayor must be given?  That has nothing to do with the bill. For what reason did the subpoenas state that all sermons that mentioned homosexuality must be given?  Again, that has nothing to do with the bill. Etc.  You may think that it is relevant, but it isn't.  Now, even though I still think it would be wrong, had the subpoenas only requested communication which actually mentioned the petitions, perhaps things would be fine.  In fact, here is what a law professor had to say:

 

 

 

University of Houston law professor Peter Linzer says the city reached too far in issuing the subpoenas. One subpoena sent to Pastor Steve Riggle, for example, asks for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity.” However, Linzer says it wouldn’t impinge on the pastors’ First Amendment rights if the city only asked only for sermons or speeches related to the signature drive. “Let’s assume they gave instructions to cheat,” Linzer says. “That would be relevant speech and I don’t see how they would have any First Amendment protection for that.”

 

There is a very real effort here in America to de-God everything.  Things like this simply are part of it.  

 

Here's Ted Cruz with some good words...

 

 

In all actuality, people can rightly sue the mayor and city attorney for violating city charter by negating the petitions for referendum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Interesting article by TX State Rep Matt Krause

 

(On a side note, the fact that the IRS "allows" this kind of speech is not a good thing - what it "allows" it can disallow - ...and just one of the multitude of reasons the IRS should be ended)

If you have ever looked at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll understand why they generally don't make serious changes to it: It is massive, and they don't even understand it, themselves, so fir them, its in their best interests to ignore what it says when possible and do what they like, since they have no oversight and answer to no one-the only ones who can stand against them are those who do their homework and can bring that information before a court to fight them. That's why the 508c1a code is still in place, that recognizes churches as tax excepted. It would be too difficult to change it, because then you have to change a bunch more to maintain cohesiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

If you have ever looked at the Internal Revenue Code, you'll understand why they generally don't make serious changes to it: It is massive, and they don't even understand it, themselves, so fir them, its in their best interests to ignore what it says when possible and do what they like, since they have no oversight and answer to no one-the only ones who can stand against them are those who do their homework and can bring that information before a court to fight them. That's why the 508c1a code is still in place, that recognizes churches as tax excepted. It would be too difficult to change it, because then you have to change a bunch more to maintain cohesiveness.

True. But since they have no oversight, they can change at will...and there have been folks who have done their homework and still lost. I'd just like to see the IRS done away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

If this is a prOBlem, then how do stores get away with no shirt, no shoes, no service? Isn't that the same principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...